Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

TPA, TAA, TPP, TED CRUZ, JEFF SESSIONS AND YOU pt2
Examiner ^ | June 14, 2015 | Bill Sullivan

Posted on 06/14/2015 9:36:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie

INTERVIEWER ASKS CRUZ IS JEFF SESSIONS RIGHT

This has been before SCOTUS and has been long upheld and used since Washington. Thus this is NOT a giving of power to the President but a way to keep him in check. It does not allow anything to be done in US law about immigration. The TPA REQUIRES that once an agreement is negotiated (the TPP) It MUST be put out to the public and the people’s representatives for at least 60 days to even be legal. Once all the representatives and people who want to read it all, it can be voted on. Up or down.. No amendments for the reasons I stated above. It is nothing new.

TAA (Trade adjustment assistance) failed. It was and attempt to get unions of US companies worldwide a little control of monies to bail out their members when the unions failed to compete with others and loss market share. It failed badly and Obama and many democrats were stopped in their bid for control in a way that could affect US law adversely to the rest of the population.

The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), trade agreement, which they have been working on since 2009. has NOT even been agreed to yet. When it is it MUST by TPA control over the President be shown to the public, at least 60 days. Then after all have read it and are satisfied that all the rules laid down by TPA were followed, they can vote for or against it, with just a majority vote in both houses. Nothing in it can change or over come US law as Ted Cruz has fought and won.

(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: cruz; immigration; tedcruz; tpa; tpp; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
"If we must have an enemy at the head of Government, let it be one whom we can oppose, and for whom we are not responsible, who will not involve our party in the disgrace of his foolish and bad measures." - Alexander Hamilton
 
"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all." -- President Ronald Reagan
 
"A thing moderately good is not so good as it ought to be. Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." - Thomas Paine 1792
 
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams
 
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
 

1 posted on 06/14/2015 9:36:25 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie; Kale; Jarhead9297; COUNTrecount; notaliberal; DoughtyOne; MountainDad; aposiopetic; ...
    Ted Cruz Ping!

    If you want on/off this ping list, please let me know.
    Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!

    CRUZ or LOSE!

2 posted on 06/14/2015 9:36:56 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
"TAA (Trade adjustment assistance) failed. It was and attempt to get unions of US companies worldwide a little control of monies to bail out their members when the unions failed to compete with others and loss market share. "

I do not understand any of this subject, but IF the quoted statement is true, and I'm not saying it's not, then WHY did the dems kill it, and the GOP support it?????

3 posted on 06/14/2015 9:46:31 PM PDT by matthew fuller (Malcom X is Obama's baby daddy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Precedent in SCOTUS rulings only count if they are for the benefit of the Left. The SCOTUS is always contradicting previous precedents.
4 posted on 06/14/2015 9:52:52 PM PDT by Jim from C-Town (The government is rarely benevolent, often malevolent and never benign!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller
This article explains it, but basically Dems want TAA, but were willing to kill it in order to torpedo TPA, in order to kill TPP, which the AFL-CIO opposes. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/a-big-win-for-big-labor/395699/
5 posted on 06/14/2015 10:01:43 PM PDT by Wayne07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Obama supports something true Conservatives want?

The author will have to work much harder to prove that to me.

6 posted on 06/14/2015 10:04:06 PM PDT by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Come on - even Ted Cruz says the terms of the TPP should be made public immediately:

Right now, the text of TPP is classified. That is a mistake. Senator Cruz has vigorously called on the Obama administration to make the full text of TPP open to the public immediately. The text being hidden naturally only fuels concerns about what might be in it. Senator Cruz has read the current draft of TPP, and it should be made public now.

https://www.tedcruz.org/a-note-to-conservatives-on-trade-agreements/

7 posted on 06/14/2015 10:08:03 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C. Edmund Wright; Lakeshark; xzins; RitaOK

Cruz ... Sessions ... trade ... ping


8 posted on 06/14/2015 10:09:33 PM PDT by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

TPA is an unconstitutional end run around the treaty clause which requires a 2/3 Senate approval in order to become binding on the United States.

TAA is a social welfare program for American Citizens who will lose their jobs because of TPP

TPP is a Treaty.


9 posted on 06/14/2015 10:09:44 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Saying that ISIL is not Islamic is like saying Obama is not an Idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

This is a horribly written article. What is by the author and what is by Ted Cruz? Cruz needs to be very clear on where he stands. For myself, he has lost a lot of credibility recently and, by comments on FreeRepublic and elsewhere, he risks seeing the early end of his 15 minutes. Even though I’ve given hundreds of dollars to his campaign, I see it wasted at this point.


10 posted on 06/14/2015 10:20:13 PM PDT by Reno89519 (For every illegal or H1B with a job, there's an American without one. Muslim = Nazi = Evil)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

There’s so much confusion about these bills it’s hard to tell what’s what anymore.


11 posted on 06/14/2015 10:35:38 PM PDT by PowerPro (Renew - Revive - Restore | Vote Wisely America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

1. Fast track allows the finished bill to pass with 50 votes instead of 60, and no amendments.

2. Has a fast-track trade bill ever been voted down by Congress?

The rest is spin.


12 posted on 06/14/2015 10:40:52 PM PDT by Hugin ("Do yourself a favor--first thing, get a firearm!",)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Cruz has read the TPP. So is he for it or against it?

If he is against it, why did he vote to fast track it?

Is he in a hurry to vote it down?


13 posted on 06/14/2015 11:33:25 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Saying that ISIL is not Islamic is like saying Obama is not an Idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

If Pelosi is happy about it; you know something is wrong.


14 posted on 06/15/2015 1:26:05 AM PDT by freekitty (Give me back my conservative vote; then find me a real conservative to vote for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet; SoConPubbie
The objections to the trade bills seem to fall into these categories:

1. Procedural. a) Fast-track reduces the supermajority of two thirds of the Senate for the approval of a treaty to 50% plus one in the house and 50% plus one in the Senate for a so-called congressional-executive agreement; b) This objection says that it is improper to evade a constitutional mandate of two thirds Senate approval simply by changing the label from a "treaty" to a "deal"; c) the time for the "world's greatest deliberative body" to deliberate about the bill is limited from unlimited to 60 days; d) the negotiations are conducted in secret except that those who are cronies of the administration have access but congressmen and senators have only limited access and are sworn to secrecy; e) rulemaking and lawmaking authority will occur outside of the Constitution reaches of the United States.

2. Substantive: a) trade deals have cause more harm to America than good. They have hollowed out the manufacturing sector, cost Americans millions of manufacturing and nonmanufacturing jobs, they promote off-shoring of American jobs, b) and they are unfair because of the relative disparities among nations in wages, environmental regulations, taxing levels and currencies. c) To the degree that they produce wealth and jobs in America by promoting exports, that wealth and those jobs are limited to favored cronies of Washington and does not trickle down to the middle-class. d) it is feared that the trade deals are loaded with environmental regulations which will not have been approved post-facto by the American Congress but which will be promulgated in the future by international bodies and which will be required to be adhered to by Americans without resort to American courts and due process or to their own elected representatives for redress of grievances.

3. Sovereignty: a) the international tribunals to be established by the Pacific Rim agreement will have the power to affect the rights of corporations and individuals in America and will deprive these entities of their constitutional right to due process in an American court; b) Lawmaking power will be moved offshore; c) American courts will be superseded by offshore tribunals; d) the entire system of American liberty based on separation of powers and checks and balances will be set to naught leading to tyranny; e) treaties and laws made pursuant to them are (congressional-executive agreements?) the supreme law of land and handy tools for a tyrant to circumvent separation of powers, checks and balances, the Bill of Rights, the federal system; f) contrary to the statements of Ted Cruz and contrary to the author's analysis of Medellin vs. Texas, it is not at all clear that treaties, congressional-executive agreements or even naked executive agreements are subject to voiding as repugnant to American law or Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medell%C3%ADn_v._Texas) see also: (1983 Hofstra Law Review article by Hyman especially the following footnote enumerating cases in which Executive agreements have been upheld:

4. E.g., Dames & Moore v. Regan, 453 U.S. 654 (1981) (agreement by President Carter providing for settlement of claims of American nationals against Iran held valid); United States v. Pink, 315 U.S. 203 (1942) (Litvinov agreement, assigning to United States all claims of Soviet Russia against American nationals, superceded conflicting state laws); United States v. Belmont, 301 U.S. 324 (1937) (Litvinov agreement upheld); J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) (agreement authorized by tariff legislation upheld); B. Altman & Co. v. United States, 224 U.S. 583 (1912) (agreement made pursuant to Tariff Act of 1897 held a "treaty" for purpose of direct appeal under § 5 of Circuit Court of Appeals Act of 1891); Star-Kist Foods, Inc. v. United States, 169 F. Supp. 268 (Cust. Ct. 1958), aftd, 275 F.2d 472 (C.C.P.A. 1959) (agreement authorized by tariff legislation held valid); Guerra v. Guajardo, 466 F. Supp. 1046 (S.D. Tex. 1978) (agreement providing for mutual assistance between customs services of the United States and the United Mexican States upheld); Dole v. Carter, 444 F. Supp. 1065 (D. Kan. 1977) (agreement between United States and Hungary returning Hungarian coronation regalia upheld); Louis Wolf & Co. v. United States, 107 F.2d 819 (C.C.P.A. 1939) (United States-Cuban trade agreement held a "commercial convention" for purpose of treaties with Norway and Austria).

4. Political: a) the negotiations are being conducted in secret by a radical Marxist determined to "transform" America who has a record of deceit and a record of bypassing the Constitution, the Congress, and the will of the people; b) his association with Obamacare and the Environmental Protection Agency to name just two demonstrates a penchant for omnibus legislation which invests the bureaucracy with legislative, interpretive, prosecutorial, and adjudicatory powers and that suggests he will resort to these devices on an international level; c) Obama has demonstrated a willingness to engage in crony capitalism to serve his political financial needs and to advance his radical agendas such as environmentalism; d) Obama is conducting negotiations in secret except that his cronies are evidently fully informed and history suggests they, in turn, have his ear; e) resorting to his phone and his pen, Obama has demonstrated a penchant for usurping powers of co-equal branches and suggests he will do so in arbitrary enforcement of trade provisions; f) Obama has corrupted the Department of Justice and is likely to do so respecting enforcement of trade provisions; g) Republicans for their part have shown no disposition to intervene against Obama on behalf of the middle class on issues like Obamacare, spending, taxes, immigration etc. rather they have by deed betrayed their word and enabled Obama's schemes and debate K St. and Wall Street hence they are unreliable firewalls; h) no fast-track treaty scheme has ever failed to pass Congress rendering the safeguard of congressional scrutiny of Obama's deal illusory.


15 posted on 06/15/2015 1:33:26 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: matthew fuller
Dem Operative Rallies Conservatives Against ‘ObamaTrade’
16 posted on 06/15/2015 2:05:21 AM PDT by cripplecreek (You vote for your TPP supporter and I'll vote for mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Thanks for your #15. Good post.


17 posted on 06/15/2015 2:25:54 AM PDT by T Ruth (Mohammedanism shall be defeated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie
Thus this is NOT a giving of power to the President but a way to keep him in check.

Why would Obama lobby for a bill that gives him no power, but would "keep him in check"?

18 posted on 06/15/2015 2:28:24 AM PDT by T Ruth (Mohammedanism shall be defeated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoConPubbie

After giving this some thought, I find it somewhat surprising that Ted Cruz has taken up the same agenda as Obama.

As we already know the general direction is a slope toward totalitarianism, how is it not foolish to champion an unknown or unquantified agenda of a Marxist, a narcissist, and a pervasive liar?

As I posted once before, there are several questions which it seems a true conservative would need answered, such as -

How can a true conservative champion a non-enumerated bureaucracy, let alone an international bureaucracy, which allows us 1 vote at a larger table, and which by nature is designed to impact our trade and economy?

Who pays for this new bureaucracy, the offices, travel, staff, police, enforcement of regulations...? Who are the governing recipients?

If economy and trade directly impact our own annual congressional budgets in the U.S., how can this not impact or interfere with future budget processes in Congress?

Regarding what is supposed to be our Constitutional Republic and representative form of government, why is the executive branch, which has routinely disclosed TS military operational details, hell bent on secrecy of this economic legislation?

Is Congress authorizing the president to “tweak” this legislation after it has been passed?

Can anyone actually prove we are not giving or transferring additional executive authority to this president, which was not enumerated in the Constitution? And NOT the “living breathing” version wrongly championed by the “progressives” or socialists.

Can we actually trust the executive branch and corporations who have crafted most of this legislation, already yoked by “corporatism,” who have demonstrated little to no loyalty to the U.S., or moral boundaries, to not give away more U.S. Sovereignty?

Are the new centralized international bureaucracies now being authorized in these bills, also being authorized to bypass the legislative branch in perpetuity on any economic & trade issues and policies, as most agencies our legislative and executive branches have created in the past have done?

Are we intentionally, or by “collateral damage,” helping to create and authorize an international authority which can either now or in the future, tax the U.S. without congressional approval?

Will the passage of this legislation help to create the bureaucracy necessary to implement UN climate regulations and taxes.?

Once created, will the U.S. Congress even be able to override divergent and harmful regulations? Will any attempt require 2/3rds of the Senate?

Does anyone actually know what is in the final version of this bill?

If not, how can a true conservative defend any congressmen or senator who does not know the breadth of what is in the final version they are voting for?


19 posted on 06/15/2015 2:28:43 AM PDT by patriotfury (May the fleas and flatulence of a thousand camels occupy mo' ham mads tent!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: T Ruth

And you could ask why the democrats killed it too but I doubt you will.


20 posted on 06/15/2015 2:52:32 AM PDT by cripplecreek (You vote for your TPP supporter and I'll vote for mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson